Kindof just a "why did you do it that way" question for Jake.

For skills, you made it very logical with regards to real life (in my opinion) by making it a "the more you use it, the more chances you'll get better at it, with diminishing returns as you DO get better at it" (ie. the whole checkmarks, with progressively harder learning checks).

Why (other than the obvious "rewarding the players for good roleplaying") didn't you extend that concept to proficiencies, coming up with something similar there (like needing your current rating of checkmarks to get a learning check, and having the target number get increasingly difficult)? Same question for Vagaries (although I'm sure the checks needed would have to be more like the cost to go up ((2 * current) + 1) or worse (squared or something) or maybe just possible through studying/experimenting in a lab. Same question for stats (although I don't know what kind of actions would warrent a checkmark on a stat other than studying/training as appropriate for the stat in question).

While I've wondered since the first reading, what really warrented me to go ahead and actually ask the question is the ongoing recurring forum topic of SA's kindof tying the hands of the Seneschal with regards to adventure design. It would seem to me that if SA's were just used for character flavor, and not for XP purposes, the Seneschal would have a great deal more freedom in adventure design, and it would be less critical if certain SA's didn't show up in every adventure. With that concern gone, the Seneschal could concentrate on just a great storyline. Of course making such an alteration kindof leaves the SA's without a way to "bleed back down" again once they hit 5 each, so something probably would have to be devised to give SA's that ebb and flow again...maybe some type of social status advancement something...or maybe they just pop up to 5 and stay there (if they don't get used frequently, that may not be all that harmful)...or maybe they just go up when used and down when presented with an opportunity that isn't taken...don't know.

I understand the concept of rewarding good roleplay (which it sounds like is pretty much the real reason SA's are used for advancement), but other than that purpose I don't see the logic in someone's bastard sword proficiency increasing or someone's perception increasing just because they managed to pursue their faith in their deity or managed to be lucky or managed to do something related to their drive of "reveal to the masses all those abusing their positions of power."

All that being said, please note that I am a newbie, have only played once, have only read the book a couple of times, and have ABSOLUTELY nothing to go on other than what I THINK I am reading and I THINK I am understanding from coments made by people posting here in the forum.

Oh, and as for the design overall (boot licking time), I have to say that I approve of almost everything I've read and retained so far, so please don't take this as complaining without giving the system a chance...I'm just asking out of honest curriosity.

ok, the newbie will shut up now and let people with actual positive numbers in IQ talk.

Or, looking at it from the other perspective, why do skills advance through use instead of through the spending of SA's?

Hi,

kenjib wrote: Or, looking at it from the other perspective, why do skills advance through use instead of through the spending of SA's?

Ian.Plumb wrote: Hi,

kenjib wrote: Or, looking at it from the other perspective, why do skills advance through use instead of through the spending of SA's?

Because there is no logical tie between following a specific motivation and improving in your carpentry skill...?

Cheers,

Hi,

kenjib wrote: Or, looking at it from the other perspective, why do skills advance through use instead of through the spending of SA's?

Ian.Plumb wrote: Because there is no logical tie between following a specific motivation and improving in your carpentry skill...?

kenjib wrote: But there is between following a specific motivation and improving your swordsmanship? Following a specific motivation and becoming physically stronger?

Ian.Plumb wrote: Hi,

kenjib wrote: Or, looking at it from the other perspective, why do skills advance through use instead of through the spending of SA's?

Ian.Plumb wrote: Because there is no logical tie between following a specific motivation and improving in your carpentry skill...?

kenjib wrote: But there is between following a specific motivation and improving your swordsmanship? Following a specific motivation and becoming physically stronger?

Dain's point exactly.

Cheers,

I personally would like to see some kind of SA expenditure to increase skills...

I always wondered why skill development gets a free pass? Swordsmanship is a skill and you have to pay for those improvements?

nothing big, but maybe having to spend a few SA points to make the skill roll or something??or only pay once you made the roll???

Not really related but possibly so, but why are SAs capped at Five? is it arbitrary or is there some kind of reason behind it statistically speaking? If you were to include skills into the things that draw upon SAs to get an increase, to my mind it would make sense to increase the threshold amounts before they cap out.. make sense?

Jason

Jaeger wrote: I personally would like to see some kind of SA expenditure to increase skills...

I always wondered why skill development gets a free pass? Swordsmanship is a skill and you have to pay for those improvements?

nothing big, but maybe having to spend a few SA points to make the skill roll or something??or only pay once you made the roll???

Thanks Ben. I missed that. It's on page 69.

kenjib wrote: Thanks Ben. I missed that. It's on page 69.

The root answer to Dains question is this.

Reward systems are for the the players. Not the characters.

Characters don't need rewards because characters are pieces of paper. The reward is for the player.

Now there are all sorts of awards that a player might responde to. A player might be happy with a reward that gives him and his character more spotlight time. A player might be happy with a reward that gives him the ability to manipulate the world directly in a manner normally restricted to the GM (director stance). A player might be happy with a reward that is nothing more than a score representing "good job" that can't be used for anything other than bragging rights over other players. A player might be happy with an increased body count as a reward, etc, etc.

But ultimately, no matter what you use, the reward is to entice the player and can only be appreciated by the player.

The most widely accepted and broadly applicable reward that a player can receive is one that increases character effectiveness.

From there it is a simply manner to conceptualize all effective reward systems.
1) identify the behavior you want from the player.
2) identify the reward that will make the player happy
3) link the two.

Notice that "make the reward contingent on realistic in game cause and effect" is no where explicitly a part of an effective reward system. At best it falls under step 2 for those players for whom such an in game rational is a deal maker or breaker.

But in general, a good reward system must merely give something the player wants in exchange for behavior the game designer wants.

Jake wants games based around characters who are driven by powerful and often conflicting emotions. Therefor earning reward is contingent on the player addressing those powerful emotions in play. The reward provides two things, both increased character effectiveness tactically (adding dice to rolls) and strategically (adding dice by increasing proficiency).


As to why there is an alternative system for skills? Good question. Jake could answer that for certain, but my take would be this. The game is focused on combat. Not just the mechanical representation of combat, but also the choices and consequences of combat. "What are you willing to die for?", "what are you willing to kill for?"

I would argue that the second question is a lot more powerful and morally interesting than the first.

By having the SA reward primarily combat ability, the game focuses more sharply on that second question. Increasing your proficiencies through spending SA points and adding dice to the CP from SAs can make the first question much less important. The character's life is much less at risk when all SAs are firing for some important combat. It then becomes much easier to kill and much harder to be killed. The character is thus given enough in game effectiveness so that the player can answer the question "what are you willing to kill for".

Are you the sort of player who kills everyone just because you can? No? Prove it. Heres enough character effectiveness to kill everyone in this room without much effort. What do you do?

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everthing starts to look like a nail. SAs give characters a really big hammer. Will the player start treating everyone like a nail?

I think by down playing the need to spend SAs on skills (by giving them an alternative way to increase) Jake's kept the focus of the reward system on those two questions.

Malechi wrote: Not really related but possibly so, but why are SAs capped at Five? is it arbitrary or is there some kind of reason behind it statistically speaking?

Kenjib said

Or, looking at it from the other perspective, why do skills advance through use instead of through the spending of SA's?

Hey Dain, I'm pretty sure I addressed these items in my post above, in case you missed it.

You are making the mistake of looking for in game causality in what is essentially a metagame reward system. I go into some detail on how this works above.

<grin>...nope Valamir, didn't miss it. It just didn't quite match what I was saying. Your reply addressed the question "why do systems based on experience work well" which isn't the question I was asking. Not saying anyone here is right or anyone is wrong...just was asking Jake the "why" of why he chose to do a half-n-half methodology.

(above was re-editted...quite a bit...after initial entry, but no one replied yet so I thought I'd clean it up a bit).

So this thread has gotten very, very large rather quickly, so it's not possible for me to address everything. First, I'll say that more or less Ralph (Valamir) is right, so use what he said to fill in gaps. Ralph "gets" TROS in a way that's spooky, and has frightened me ever since the now-famous Origins game where he mercilessly drove his own character toward death based on his rather dour Destiny.

Dain wrote: Kenjib said

Or, looking at it from the other perspective, why do skills advance through use instead of through the spending of SA's?

Actually that is the perspective that makes absolutely zero sense to me (if trying to make the system model real life).

Not slamming you here. Your view is a very viable option many systems use, and use quite successfully. Let me ramble on for a bit so you can see where I'm coming from too. Let me list a few sample situations that make no sense to me when trying to model real world from the perspective of the CHARACTERS themselves:

1. I believe so stoutly in my deity (faith SA) that I stood on the edge of the cliff and balanced myself without falling (using all those extra SA dice to keep from losing my balance) and now as a result I swing my bastard sword more proficiently but my faith is greatly reduced (because my player had to spend the points he earned).

2. My player (something that does not even exist from the character's perspective) got lucky on dice all night, made everyone at the table laugh, and in general made everyone at the game table have a good time, and now as a result my physical strength was significantly higher when I woke up this morning...so from my perspective as a CHARACTER, I lounged around all night doing nothing noteworthy or strenuous in the slightest, went to sleep, and when I woke up...POOF...I'm magically stronger with no logical explanation whatsoever, and all of a sudden my luck sucks (because my player had to spend the points he earned).

3. As a result of my drive to "reveal to the masses those abusing their power" I stayed up all night with a printing press and generated tons of papers revealing indesputable proof that the local Duke was falsely convicting and imprisoning people too poor to defend themselves in order to replenish the slave labor in his secret gold mines, and now as a result I can fire my longbow better, but I suck at trying to uncover more abuses now (because my player had to spend the points he earned)

I have no problem with games that use experience to advance characters, D&D has been fantastically and inexpressibly successful at the whole "killing things makes me fight, cast, and thieve better" concept, even though it makes no real world sense why killing something makes you pick a lock better.

I was just currious as to why a system so accurate in fencing, and so logical (in the CHARACTER's point of view as opposed to the PLAYER's point of view) in skill developement, didn't go ahead and make the rest of the system follow the path of accuracy and logic instead of the path of "we know it makes no sense logically, but we're going to take a set of completely unrelated behaviors and tie them to skill and stat developement anyhow to motivate the players to role play well".

I guess overall I had the observation that this is a hybrid developement system, where part of the system took the "character ability improves without the character doing anything to explain that improvement (experience based)" route while another part of the system took the "the character studies/trains/practices to improve, just like in real life" route.

All that being said, Kenjib, I do play in and approve of the game balance provided by many experience based games, and don't have a problem with them in the slightest...but those games all tend to be single methodology (ie. all experience based, no character's point of view logical developement), whereas this one seems to be pulling from both worlds, and some people are remarking that having to put situations for all SA's of all characters in each and every game seems to make the games all feel the same while being played, and seems to be resulting in players losing interest after a few games.

If the SA for experience situation did not exist, the Seneshal's seem to be saying they feel they would have an easier time keeping the interest of their players because they could create more diverse situations and spend time developing story lines instead of doing SA maintenance for all the characters sitting at the table as a first goal, and putting the actual story line second to that.

Hi Jake,

This explaination should be added to the newbie sticky or TROS faq. It's very clear.

Thanks Jake! That's all I was looking for, and it covered everything I was asking. Sometimes it's good to have a window into the brain of the designer to see what his intentions really were in order to better participate in the game (whether as Seneschal or as player). A game system is a living thing, not just hard, cold, lifeless rules. Knowing the emotional background and intent of the beast is every bit as important as a hunter knowing his quarry (don't have a dictionary with me...hope that's really a word and the right one at that). The reason I say that is that it makes it easier for everyone at the table if eveyone has "the feel" for the hows and whys of the ways things are done, that way they tend to subconsciously tailor their actions to things they know are within the scope of the design instead of finding themselves unintentionally but constantly bucking the system by trying to follow rules by their letters instead of their intents.

Thanks too to Valamir, Kenjib, and everybody else here for their perspectives. Even though they weren't addressing my exact question, the inputs they had were very valid and pretty much exactly match things I've found in my own 19+ years of game mastering other various systems.

Thanks again to all.

Something else thats been mentioned other places, and alluded to by Jake.

It shouldn't be a big problem for the GM to do maintenance on SA's. Some work, yes, but not mostly theirs.

The Players should be driving toward situations that bring their SA's into play. They created them for a reason. They should be looking for openings to drive toward what matters to them... or change them to something that does interest them... or fit the play situation better.

I would be.

Consider
If you created an Aragorn-type character, would you avoid driving play toward the chance to become king, in order to go dungeon delving for cash?